Standard Conservation Project Description: Difference between revisions
Pcereghino (talk | contribs) mNo edit summary |
Pcereghino (talk | contribs) mNo edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Effort}}[[category:planning]][[category:restoration]][[category:protection]] | {{Effort}}[[category:planning]][[category:restoration]][[category:protection]] | ||
''' | '''Each funding program requires similar but varied grant applications and large restoration projects can require tens of applications to state and federal programs. This repetitive, largely redundant effort to allocate funding wastes local project management capacity and delays Puget Sound ecosystem recovery.''' | ||
Redundant application processes are a symptom of the current state of our state and federal planning and funding system. To secure funding through a project lifecycle, project management staff repeatedly work to describe actions to win unique competitions. Each successful application results in a unique contract with requirements, and so variation in applications results in an accumulating administrative burden. | |||
Written project descriptions provide diverse functions in the funding process. They enable projects to get funds necessary for completion, are the basis for transparent contractual controls, allow for evaluation of strategy, and support storytelling. Over the project lifecycle, some aspects of project description remain relatively stable, while others aspects may change radically. Redundant production and review of complex project descriptions is driven by the tension between the number of funders who each need to show transparency and fair competition, change in project scope, schedule and budget, and project developers who must build a complete funding package so we can realize ecosystem benefits. | |||
==Products== | |||
*[[file:Cereghino 2019 DRAFT project description standard project description.pdf]] - yes a funny name... an 11x17 description of a project to standardize how we describe projects, to achieve administrative benefits. | *[[file:Cereghino 2019 DRAFT project description standard project description.pdf]] - yes a funny name... an 11x17 description of a project to standardize how we describe projects, to achieve administrative benefits. | ||
*[[file:Cereghino 2019 DRAFT project description problem focus group.pdf]] - a draft output from an October 2019 focus group workshop. | *[[file:Cereghino 2019 DRAFT project description problem focus group.pdf]] - a draft output from an October 2019 focus group workshop. | ||
Revision as of 22:22, 12 November 2019
- Salish Sea References
- Ecology Shoreline Photography Viewer
- The Encyclopedia of Puget Sound provides a peer reviewed version of the wiki
- PRISM Project Search
- Washington Coastal Atlas
- UW River History Project
- Wiki Rules
- Wiki text does not reflect the policy or opinion of any agency or organization
- Please adhere to our Social Contract and Style Guide
- Complain here, and be nice.
Each funding program requires similar but varied grant applications and large restoration projects can require tens of applications to state and federal programs. This repetitive, largely redundant effort to allocate funding wastes local project management capacity and delays Puget Sound ecosystem recovery.
Redundant application processes are a symptom of the current state of our state and federal planning and funding system. To secure funding through a project lifecycle, project management staff repeatedly work to describe actions to win unique competitions. Each successful application results in a unique contract with requirements, and so variation in applications results in an accumulating administrative burden.
Written project descriptions provide diverse functions in the funding process. They enable projects to get funds necessary for completion, are the basis for transparent contractual controls, allow for evaluation of strategy, and support storytelling. Over the project lifecycle, some aspects of project description remain relatively stable, while others aspects may change radically. Redundant production and review of complex project descriptions is driven by the tension between the number of funders who each need to show transparency and fair competition, change in project scope, schedule and budget, and project developers who must build a complete funding package so we can realize ecosystem benefits.
Products
- File:Cereghino 2019 DRAFT project description standard project description.pdf - yes a funny name... an 11x17 description of a project to standardize how we describe projects, to achieve administrative benefits.
- File:Cereghino 2019 DRAFT project description problem focus group.pdf - a draft output from an October 2019 focus group workshop.
Related Effort
- Acquisition Barrier Analysis
- Large Project Budget Standards
- Coordinated Investment
- Continuous Improvement
- Align - Washington Ecosystem Grant Coordination Workgroup
